Maybe I’ll have more to say about this later. I don’t know. I talked a bit about it on today’s DL right at the start, where I read Ergun Caner’s letter and my response. I’m still processing this myself. I am still in a bit of shock. In any case, here is today’s DL. I have added all of today’s correspondence to the pdf we were building a few weeks ago, here. But what you need to know is all found in this final exchange:
For the last time, are you trying to weasel out of a debate for which we have already agreed?
FOR THE LAST TIME, are you trying to change the agreed format and rules?
FOR THE LAST TIME, for the sake of clarity, are you backing out, running away, or trying to change (in midstream) a debate for which all parties have already settled?
We are preparing to upload your response, and the National Liberty Journal readers- almost 500,000- want to know.
We stand without fear, and without flinching. We are ready.
As for this discussion, I am done. I shall be there, on Monday, Oct 16, either to debate the topic, or lament the fact that your side could not debate without trying to manipulate the proceedings. Let the record show- Emir and I are still ready to debate- as promised.
Jill- please upload this to the LTS website, copy to Dr Falwell, and my website as well.
Incredible. Simply incredible.
You honestly have no idea how you are behaving, do you, sir? You have no concept of how childish and immature your bullying tactics are. Is there no one, Ergun, at Liberty, who can take you aside and help you? This is simply incredible, it truly is. It is a sad, sad day for Liberty University that a man who can be so completely beyond reason, so deaf to the most basic appeals for mature interaction, can be “in charge.”
Dr. Caner, you fear debating me directly. That has come out clearly in our correspondence. You know you could never survive a scholarly exchange with me on the level of the text. You are acting with all this bluster because you know this to be true. This is why you avoid a one-on-one debate. This is why you avoid a clear thesis. This is especially why you avoid cross-examination. I know this, you know this, and the fair minded reader of our exchanges knows this. Your failure to engage any level of conversation since February makes this painfully clear.
1) It is untrue that we have agreed to the format and rules. To say otherwise is a documented lie.
2) It is untrue that all parties have “settled” these issues. To say otherwise is a documented lie.
3) I remind you, sir, that I have a standing challenge to you to face me, one-on-one, in front of each of your classes to discuss, from the text of Scripture, its specific teaching on election and predestination. Anyone standing by that challenge is hardly backing out or running away.
Any honest-minded person can read our exchanges and see the facts. You have acted dishonestly, and I call upon you to repent of your actions.
Now, as to the debate. Since you do not engage in reasoned dialogue, but instead operate on the “I don’t care about what you said, you will do as I say” model, here’s the story.
1) I will be there October 16th.
2) Dr. Ascol will not. He has no intention of being treated like dirt on your shoe, and I have no intention of asking him to endure such childish retorts and dishonesty. When I asked him to join me, I believed I was dealing with men of integrity who would behave as Christians. If I had had any idea of the level to which you would stoop, I would never have invited anyone at all to endure such behavior. We had agreed a few weeks ago that if you did not show some signs of actually being willing to engage in adult and scholarly conversation at this point, he would not be involved in the debate. Since then, other issues have arisen (noted on his blog) which only confirm the wisdom of that decision.
3) I will debate you both. You have no reason to complain. You have been trying to tell folks I want to “back out” and “run away” for weeks. That’s called wishful thinking, Ergun. The fact is, you know better. I will be there to demonstrate that your thesis is heretical; that your denial to God of the capacity of love with discernment is unbiblical and illogical; and that God is free and sovereign in the matter of human salvation. I have debated in less friendly situations.
So it is settled. James White vs. the Caner brothers. Thomas Road Baptist Church. October 16th. Parliamentary procedure. Thesis is the unintelligible mess you insist upon and which I will use as a springboard to demonstrate the incoherence of synergism and the clarity of God’s truth from Scripture. The two sides get completely equal time—don’t think you get twice as much just because I will be upholding biblical monergism by myself. I will be keeping very careful track of time to ensure fairness, as will others.
Please forward the name of the person responsible for the facilities. Richard Pierce will need to begin discussions regarding video taping and providing redundancy so as to preclude any mishaps.
To which Ergun Caner replied:
Dear Dr White:
Good, I am glad to see we shall have the debate. See you then.